Victims’ Perception of Criminal Justice System.

Order Description

1.In the video, Voices of Victims: Criminal Justice Professionals, there are several recurrent themes presented. Identify the three themes that you think are the most critical for effective criminal justice functioning. Discuss the actions/strategies that might be introduced to address perceived system deficits. With conclusions, 3 references and citations.

Victims’ Perception of Criminal Justice System.
1.In the video, Voices of Victims: Criminal Justice Professionals, there are several recurrent themes presented. Identify the three themes that you think are the most critical for effective criminal justice functioning. Discuss the actions/strategies that might be introduced to address perceived system deficits. With conclusions, 3 references and citations.
Chapters 2 (pp. 22-36), 15 and 16 see below
View Video: Voices of Victims: Criminal Justice Professionals (14:47)
Voices of Victims: Criminal Justice Professionals plain text paper
Podcast: Victim Impact Statements (2:42)
Please include citations and references to support your post.
Chapters 2 (pp. 22-36) below:
THE COURT SYSTEM
Introduction
Understanding the role and functions of the various court systems in the United States provides professionals with a solid foundation for understanding the dynamics of the law. It is a complex aspect of our legal system that can be confusing and frustrating to victims when they are first exposed to it. Understanding the rationale behind its present-day structure may help victims understand more clearly the manner in which laws operate and interact.
To comprehend the role of federal and state law, it is essential to have a firm grasp of the principles of how the American justice system functions. For a victim of crime, it is the most confusing, frustrating, and complex environment to navigate. This section will provide a brief overview of the court systems in the United States. The court systems in the United States are based on the principle of federalism. The first Congress established a federal court system, and the individual states were permitted to continue their own judicial structure. There was general agreement among our nation’s founders that individual states needed to retain significant autonomy from federal control. Under this concept of federalism, the United States developed as a loose confederation of semi-independent states having their own courts, with the federal court system acting in a very limited manner. In the early history of our nation, most cases were tried in state courts. It was only later that the federal government and the federal judiciary began to exercise jurisdiction over crimes and civil matters. Jurisdiction in this context simply means the ability of the court to enforce laws and punish individuals who violate those laws.
As a result of this historical evolution, a dual system of state and federal courts exists today. Therefore, federal and state courts may have concurrent jurisdiction over specific crimes. For example, a person who robs a bank may be tried and convicted in state court for robbery, then tried and convicted in federal court for the federal offense of robbery of a federally chartered savings institution. Another characteristic of the American court system is that it performs its duties with little or no supervision. A Supreme Court justice does not exercise supervision over lower court judges in the same way that a government supervisor or manager exercises control over employees. The U.S. Supreme Court and the various state supreme courts exercise supervision only in the sense that they hear appellate cases from lower courts and establish certain procedures for these courts.
A third feature of the U.S. court systems is one of specialization and occurs primarily at the state and local level. In many states, courts of limited jurisdiction hear misdemeanor cases. Other state courts of general jurisdiction try felonies. Still other courts may be designated as juvenile courts and hear only matters involving juveniles. This process also occurs in certain civil courts that hear only family law matters, probate matters, or civil cases involving damages. At the federal level, there are courts such as bankruptcy that hear only cases dealing with specific matters.
The fourth characteristic of the American court systems is its geographic organization. State and federal courts are organized into geographic areas. In many jurisdictions, these are called judicial districts and contain various levels of courts. For example, on the federal level, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has district (trial) courts that hear matters within  certain specific boundaries and an appellate court that hears all appeals from cases within that area. Several studies have been conducted regarding the differences in sentences for the same type of crime in geographically distinct courts. For example, in Iowa the average sentence for motor vehicle theft is forty-seven months, whereas the average sentence for the same offense in New York is fourteen months.1 This and similar discrepancies may reflect different social values and attitudes within specific geographic areas.
STATE COURT SYSTEM
Historically, each of the thirteen original states had its own unique court structure. This independence continued after the American Revolution and resulted in widespread differences among the various states, some of which still exist today. Because each state adopted its own system of courts, the consequence was a poorly planned and confusing judicial structure. Several reform movements have attempted to streamline and modernize this system. These reforms have resulted in many of the state court systems adopting a three-tier judicial system. Most state courts are now divided into three levels:
• Trial courts
• Appellate courts
• State supreme courts

TRIAL COURT
trial court are courts where civil and criminal cases start and finish. The trial court conducts an entire series of acts that culminate in either the defendant’s release or sentencing. State trial courts can be further divided into courts of limited or special jurisdiction and courts of general jurisdiction. The nature and type of case determines which court will have jurisdiction. Courts that only hear and decide certain limited legal issues are courts of limited Jurisdiction. These courts hear and decide issues such as traffic tickets or set bail for criminal defendants. Typically, these courts hear certain types of minor civil or criminal cases. There are approximately 13,000 local courts in the United States. They are called county, magistrate, justice, or municipal courts. Judges in these courts may be either appointed or elected. In many jurisdictions, these are part-time positions, and the incumbent may have another job or position in addition to serving as a judge. However, simply because they handle minor civil and criminal matters does not negate the fact that these courts perform important duties. Often, the only contact the average citizen will have with the judicial system occurs at this level. In addition, courts of limited jurisdiction may hear certain types of specialized matters, such as probate of wills and estates, divorces, child custody matters, and juvenile hearings. These types of courts may be local courts or, depending on the state, courts of general jurisdiction that are designated by statute to hear and decide specific types of cases. For example, in California a superior court is considered a court of general jurisdiction; however, certain superior courts are designated to hear only juvenile matters, thereby becoming a court of limited jurisdiction when sitting as a juvenile court.
Courts of General Jurisdiction are granted authority to hear and decide all issues that are brought before them. These courts normally hear all major civil or criminal cases. They are also known by a variety of names, such as superior courts, circuit courts, district courts, or courts of common pleas. Because they are courts of general jurisdiction, they have authority to decide issues that occur anywhere within the state. Some larger jurisdictions such as Los Angeles or New York may have numerous courts of general jurisdiction within the city limits. These courts also hear the most serious forms of criminal matters, including death penalty cases.
Courts of general jurisdiction traditionally have the power to order individuals to do, or refrain from doing, certain acts. These courts may issue injunctions that prohibit persons from performing certain acts, or they may require individuals to do certain functions or duties. This authority is derived from the equity power that resides in courts of general jurisdiction. In some states, like California, there is a unification movement which merges the inferior courts and the courts of general jurisdiction into one court that handles matters that were in the past handled by either the inferior courts or courts of general jurisdiction. The unification movement is an attempt by states to reduce the costs of their justice systems.
EQUITY is the concept that justice is administered according to fairness, as contrasted with the strict rules of law. In early English common law, such separate courts of equity were known as courts of Chancery. These early courts were not concerned with technical legal issues; rather they focused on rendering decisions or orders that were fair or equitable. In modern times, the power of these courts has been merged with courts of general jurisdiction, allowing them to rule on matters that require fairness as well as the strict application of the law. The power to issue temporary restraining orders (TROs) in intimate partner abuse cases comes from the equitable powers of the court. Appellate jurisdiction is reserved for courts that hear appeals from both limited and general jurisdiction courts. These courts do not hold trials or hear evidence. They decide matters of law and issue formal written decisions or “opinions.” There are two classes of appellate courts: intermediate, or courts of appeals and final, or supreme courts.
COURT OF APPEALS: The intermediate appellate courts are known as courts of appeals. Approximately half the states have designated intermediate appellate courts. These courts may be divided into judicial districts and will hear all appeals within their jurisdiction. They will hear and decide all issues of law that are raised on appeal in both civil and criminal cases. Because these courts deal strictly with legal or equitable issues, there is no jury to decide factual disputes. These courts accept the facts as determined by the trial courts. Intermediate appellate courts have the authority to reverse the decision of the lower courts and to send the matter back with instructions to retry the case in accordance with their opinion. They may also uphold the decision of the lower court. In either situation, the party that loses the appeal at this level may file an appeal with the next higher appellate court.

SUPREME COURTS
Final appellate courts are the highest state appellate courts. They may be known as supreme courts or courts of last resort. There may be five, seven, or nine justices  sitting on this court depending on the state. Final appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide issues dealing with all matters decided by lower courts, including ruling on state constitutional or statutory issues. Their decision is binding on all other courts within the state. Once this court has decided an issue, the only appeal left is to file in the federal court system. There are two state court systems in which the state supreme courts do not hear criminal cases. In Oklahoma and in Texas there is a separate state criminal court of appeals that decides appeals only in criminal cases.
JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM
Because of the significant increase in the importance of juvenile crime in our society, a brief overview of juvenile courts is warranted. Although there are some differences, both federal and state systems were initially founded on the concept of rehabilitating young offenders. In addition, both systems wanted to shield juveniles from public scrutiny; therefore, each contained provisions for keeping matters confidential. The present-day American state court system of dealing with children involved in crimes began in 1899 when the state of Illinois passed the Illinois Juvenile Court Act. It was at that time that the juvenile court system as we know it today came into existence.2 This statute separated the juvenile court system from the adult criminal system. It labeled minors who violated the law as “delinquents” rather than criminals, and required that juvenile court judges determine what “is in the best interests of the minor” in rendering their decision. The juvenile court system is guided by five basic principles:
1. The state is the ultimate parent of all children within its jurisdiction, the doctrine of parens patrea.
2. Children are worth saving, and the state should utilize nonpunitive measures to do so.
3. Children should be nurtured and not stigmatized by the court process.
4. Each child is different, and justice should be tailored to meet individual needs and
requirements.
5. The use of noncriminal sanctions is necessary to give primary consideration to the needs of
the child.
It is important to note that each state determines its own jurisdictional age of minors who are
handled by its juvenile system. Most involve children who are under eighteen years of age. A few states use higher ages, up to twenty-one. Three states cover children up to fifteen years of age and adjudicate sixteen-year-olds in adult criminal courts.
Although these principles were originally adopted for delinquents or minors who com-
mitted criminal acts, they have been broadly applied to proceedings involving children who are
victims of abuse. Understanding the criminal court system is only the beginning of appreciating the complexity of the American criminal justice system. Professionals working in this area must also understand the parties involved in the criminal justice system. The different parties that comprise our system are reviewed in the following sections.

FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM

Whereas state courts have their origin in historical accident and custom, federal courts were
created by the U.S. Constitution. Section 1 of Article 3 established the federal court system with
the words providing for “one Supreme Court, and . . . such inferior Courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish.” From this beginning, Congress has engaged in a series of  acts that has resulted in today’s federal court system. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the U.S. Supreme Court and established district courts and circuit courts of appeals (later known as the U.S. Courts of Appeal). There are some federal courts, like the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, that were enacted by legislation and are considered as legislative courts and not “Article III” courts.

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

Federal district courts are the lowest level of the federal court system. These courts have original jurisdiction over all cases involving a violation of federal statutes. District courts handle thousands of criminal cases per year. The U.S. District Courts are the primary trial courts in the federal system. There is at least one district court in each state. These courts are defined by the geographical label of the state they are located in, for example, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

US COURT OF APPEALS

The U.S. Courts of Appeals are the intermediate appellate-level courts
within the federal system. These courts are also referred to as circuit courts because the federal
system is divided into eleven circuits. A Twelfth U.S. Court of Appeals serves the Washington,
D.C., area. These courts hear appeals from the district courts and habeas corpus appeals from
state court convictions. These appeals are usually heard by panels of three appellate court judges
rather than by all the judges of each circuit.

US SUPREME COURT

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. It has the capacity for judicial review of all lower court decisions, as well as state and federal statutes. By exercising this power, the Supreme Court determines what laws and lower court decisions conform to the mandates set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The concept of judicial review was first referred to by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, in which he described the Supreme Court as ensuring that the will of the people will be supreme over the will of the legislature.4 This concept was firmly and finally established in our system when the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. The U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have jurisdiction only in federal issues. There must be a federal issue before a federal court has jurisdiction in criminal matters.

For example, if an accused is convicted in a state court for robbery, before the U.S. Supreme Court can consider his or her case, there must be a federal issue, for example, the search of his or her home violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Although it is primarily an appellate court, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction
in the following cases: cases between the United States and a state; cases between states; cases
involving foreign ambassadors, ministers, and consuls; and cases between a state and a citizen of
another state or country.
The Court hears appeals from lower courts and the various state courts of last resort
( generally the state supreme courts). If four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court vote to hear a
case, the court will issue a Writ of certiorari an order sent to a lower court requiring the
records of the case to be sent to the Supreme Court for review. The Court meets on the first
Monday of October and usually remains in session until June. The Court may review any case it
deems  worthy but in actuality hears very few of the cases filed. Of approximately 8,000 appeals
each year, the Court agrees to review fewer than 150; however, it may not issue an opinion on
each case.

The federal Court Juvenile System:

When Congress addressed the issue of juvenile
offenders, it established two alternatives for their prosecution:
• The juvenile can waive personal rights to be treated as a juvenile, or
• The juvenile can have the matter treated as a civil proceeding called juvenile adjudication.
If the court finds that the juvenile committed the offense, that individual faces a series of federal
sanctions, including incarceration. There is a federal preference for state prosecution of juveniles,
because there is no separate federal juvenile court judge or juvenile detention system. If adjudicated to be a delinquent, the juvenile is placed in a state juvenile facility. The federal government contracts with states for this service.
Until the passage of the Crime Control Act of 1990, the federal government prosecuted only
juveniles who committed crimes on federal reservations, where the states had no jurisdiction.
The Crime Control Act added two other categories of juveniles who fall under federal  juvenile
court jurisdiction: Juveniles who commit felony crimes of violence and juveniles involved in
certain drug felonies. Similar to most state court systems, federal law allows for the transfer or
certification of a juvenile to “adult status.” This procedure allows juveniles to be tried as adults in either the state or the federal court system.
Under federal law, juveniles are those persons under twenty-one who commit a federal
offense before their eighteenth birthday. A federal judge acts as the federal equivalent of the state
juvenile court judge. The proceedings are confidential with no member of the public or press in
attendance. Federal jurisdiction in juvenile matters is established when:
the state does not have jurisdiction;
• the state does not have programs or services available for juveniles; or
• the offense charged is a violent felony or drug offense, and there is a substantial federal
interest in the case.
A juvenile proceeding is initiated by the filing of an “information.” In most cases, the U.S.  attorney must file a certification stating there are grounds for federal jurisdiction. The hearing in federal court is very similar to a court trial.
The parties:

Seven parties are involved in the criminal justice process: the victim, the perpetrator, the law
enforcement, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, the courts, and the correctional system. Each
of these parties or organizations has different goals and needs. Not all emotions or objectives are
the same for all the parties. It is obvious, for example, that the prosecutor and defense attorney
will have different perspectives on the outcome of the trial. Those who work in this area must
be familiar with the various responsibilities of each of these parties and be able to explain their
functions to those who are involved in the criminal justice system.

VICTIM

The victim of any crime is often the forgotten party in the criminal justice system. For many
years, victims were perceived as simply another witness to the crime. The prevailing attitude was
that the real victim was the “People of the State” in which the crime was committed. Families of
murder victims could not obtain information regarding the case and were often ignored by over-
worked and understaffed criminal justice personnel. Within the last thirty years, this attitude has
begun to change as we become more aware of the needs and desires of crime victims.
Professionals dealing with crime victims should understand that they may be suffering
emotional and/or physical trauma as a result of the offense.6 Care must be taken to ensure that
victims understand how the process works and what their rights are. It is also important to realize
that individuals other than the original victim may have an interest in the process. These parties
include the victim’s family and friends, and in some situations the victim’s employer. All appropriate parties should be notified of every significant event within the criminal justice process. Victim services providers must also respect and protect the victim’s right to privacy if that is the victim’s desire.
Victims of crime will normally have a number of questions and concerns regarding the
court system and their involvement in it. One frustrating aspect of this process is that victims
often perceive that the defendant has more rights and faster access to the courts than they do.
Other chapters of this textbook examine in detail the rights of victims of crime during the criminal justice process.

PERPETRATOR

The perpetrator of a crime is guaranteed certain rights within our form of government. Many
aspects of the criminal procedure process are controlled by the U.S. Constitution, specifically the
Bill of Rights (the original ten amendments to the Constitution). These federal constitutional
protections concerning individual rights are, for the most part, binding on state courts.7
These rights attach to the perpetrator early in the criminal procedure process, and violation
of these rights may result in the case being dismissed. For example, if the perpetrator confesses
to the crime of murder, and that confession is obtained in violation of the person’s constitutional
rights, it may be suppressed.8 If the confession is the only link connecting the defendant to the
crime, the case may have to be dismissed. When these types of incidents occur, it is difficult
for the victim to understand why the defendant goes free when there has been a confession.
If this happens, professionals working with victims must attempt to offer other alternatives such
as availability of filing civil lawsuits against the perpetrator.
LAW ENFORCEMENT

One law enforcement role in the criminal process is to apprehend the perpetrator.9 Although this
may seem to be a simple concept, understanding the organization and function of law enforce-
ment agencies in the United States can be an exercise in frustration. American law enforcement
activities take place on three independent levels: federal, state, and local. There is little unifor-
mity among these entities. In addition, each of these agencies may enforce different criminal laws
based on different jurisdictional authority. For example, the U.S. Customs Service may arrest
individuals who violate federal laws regarding the importation of goods into the United States,
the state highway patrol may be tasked with enforcing traffic laws on highways and streets, and
the local police department may be engaged in tracking down a serial rapist.
To confuse the issue further, there is another emerging form of law enforcement activity in the United States whose activities are expanding. Private protective services have been
defined as “those self-employed individuals and privately funded business entities and organizations  providing security-related services to specific clientele for a fee . . . in order to protect their  persons, private property, or interests from various hazards.”10 Normally these firms are employed by corporate clients to protect private interests. They act as private citizens and may make arrests for violations of crimes committed in their presence.

PROSECUTOR

The prosecuting attorney is a familiar individual in the criminal justice process. The office of the
prosecuting attorney is known by a variety of names, including district attorney, county attorney,
commonwealth attorney, and, at the federal level, the U.S. attorney. The prosecutor plays a critical role in the criminal process for a variety of reasons. That person is the go-between for law enforcement and the courts and decides what type of charges to file, whether to plea bargain a particular case, and how to present the case to the court or jury. The primary duty of the prosecutor is to promote justice, not just to prosecute.
One hotly debated issue surrounding the prosecutor’s function concerns plea bargaining.11
From a criminal justice perspective, a plea bargain serves several purposes: A defendant may
receive the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge that will reduce the time spent in jail or
prison, or the prosecutor may have a weak case and a plea bargain may ensure that the defendant
is convicted of something rather than walking free after an acquittal. Also, from the judge’s perspective, a plea bargain eliminates one more case. A plea bargain may also benefit a victim in several ways: A plea to a lesser offense eliminates the requirement that the victim relive the crime by testifying in court and, similar to the prosecutor’s position, a plea bargain guarantees that the defendant is convicted of some crime. Conversely, many victims resent plea bargains because they believe that a jury should decide the case, and that if the perpetrator is guilty, he or she should be punished to the maximum extent allowed by the law.

Another controversial aspect of plea bargaining is that some prosecutors fail to notify the
victim of their intent to reduce or dismiss some of the charges in exchange for a plea of guilty.
There are victims who have found out about the plea bargain at the time the prosecutor called
to inquire about the status of the case. If plea bargaining is to occur, the preferred method is to
fully involve the victim in the decision-making process. If the victim is adamantly opposed to the
reduction or dismissal of charges, the prosecutor should seriously consider not going forward
with the plea bargain.
The prosecuting attorney is the representative of the people of the state or of the United
States. This person is not the crime victim’s personal attorney. This aspect of our criminal justice
system is very troubling to many victims. However, a prosecutor who is sensitive to the needs and concerns of victims of crime can help reduce these concerns and many of the other traumas suffered by these individuals.

DEFENSE COUNSEL

The defense counsel represents the rights and interests of the perpetrator. Unlike the prosecutor
who is concerned with justice and fairness, the defense attorney’s obligation as established by the American Bar Association’s General Standards of Conduct is to use all available courage, devotion, and skills to protect the rights of the accused. Many defense attorneys interpret this obligation as requiring that they do everything possible to obtain an acquittal even if they know that the defendant in fact committed the offense. Unlike the prosecutor, the defense counsel, even though an officer of the court, has no duty to promote justice. The defense counsel has the primary duty to advocate for the best interests of the accused.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that those who are accused of
crimes have a right to be represented by an attorney. The Supreme Court in the landmark case
of Gideon v. Wainwright established the principle that all defendants have a right to counsel in
all felony cases even if they could not afford to hire their own attorney.13 The court extended
this concept to misdemeanor cases in Argersinger v. Hamilin holding that absent a waiver no
person may be imprisoned for any offense, either misdemeanor or felony, unless represented by
an attorney.
There are basically four types of defense counsel: public defenders, contract defense
services, assigned defense counsel, and private defense counsel. Public defenders are hired and
paid for by the government and are appointed to represent those persons charged with crimes
who cannot afford to hire an attorney for representation. Many counties have public defender’s
offices that are staffed by very able, aggressive attorneys. However, there are instances when, for
a variety of reasons, the public defender’s office has a conflict of interest in a case. For example,
this may occur if there were two defendants in one case. In this situation, the court may appoint
an attorney from the contract defense services to represent one of the two defendants. Contract
defense services are normally composed of a group of attorneys who have entered into an agreement with the county to represent indigent defendants for a specified amount of money.
Assigned defense counsel exists in the majority of the counties in the United States.15 Many
of these counties are small and cannot afford the cost of maintaining a public defender’s office.
Under the assigned defense counsel format, the court maintains a list of attorneys who are willing to be appointed to represent indigent criminal defendants. When a defendant appears in court, the judge appoints the next attorney on the list to represent the perpetrator.
Another category of defense attorney is the private defense counsel. These attorneys usually
represent those defendants who are capable of paying for their services. Not only do perpetrators
have a right to an attorney, the courts have held that the attorney must be competent.16 Although
the Constitution requires competent counsel who will vigorously defend the perpetrator, there is
no requirement or right to have an attorney who will knowingly present perjured testimony. In
Nix v. Whiteside, the defense attorney, upon learning that his client was going to take the stand
and commit perjury, informed the client that he could not permit such testimony and if the client
insisted on going forward and giving this testimony, the attorney would disclose the perjury and
withdraw from the case. The perpetrator testified and did not commit perjury; however, he did
file an app